Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(May 16, 2012 at 1:20 am)Epimethean Wrote: "No the Graphe' is fallible. We know it is subject to spelling errors grammatical issues and miss translation. This is proved over and over when comparing the original manuscripts with each other."
Oh yes. You proved that mis-translation is a hot commodity in the mess you made with agape and philos elsewhere. These are rubbish arguments which lean this way when you like, and that when you don't.
Wow, tell me your just being difficult and are truly not seriously wanting me to address this series of informal fallacies as you have presented them..
If you simply want to be obstinate then I will be happy to let you go and do your thing, if you are seriously trying to challenge what was said then clean up your red herring and try to make an "on topic" effort to what was orginally stated.
You showed zero good evidence that there ever was a distinction that was not demotic or which resisted syncretism. You did nothing to argue other than an appeal to your own cult's ethos, and when you were directed to look at even the concordances you use, you went as flat as an old soda. Here, you are doing the same. The best thing I can say for you, is that you prove christians have no understanding of language, but love to pretend that language exists because of them.
Address anything you like. You never prove a point aside from your own inability to prove a point.
(May 16, 2012 at 8:20 am)Epimethean Wrote: You showed zero good evidence that there ever was a distinction that was not demotic or which resisted syncretism. You did nothing to argue other than an appeal to your own cult's ethos, and when you were directed to look at even the concordances you use, you went as flat as an old soda. Here, you are doing the same. The best thing I can say for you, is that you prove christians have no understanding of language, but love to pretend that language exists because of them.
Address anything you like. You never prove a point aside from your own inability to prove a point.
..and you've shown zero ability to comprehend and address the content of my actual post. You had to twist the definition being discussed in order to troll up an excuse for your current rant. If you want to be taken seriously remain on topic. If you have a problem with a previous thread address it in that thread rather than try and hijack someone else's work.
(May 16, 2012 at 8:20 am)Epimethean Wrote: You showed zero good evidence that there ever was a distinction that was not demotic or which resisted syncretism. You did nothing to argue other than an appeal to your own cult's ethos, and when you were directed to look at even the concordances you use, you went as flat as an old soda. Here, you are doing the same. The best thing I can say for you, is that you prove christians have no understanding of language, but love to pretend that language exists because of them.
Address anything you like. You never prove a point aside from your own inability to prove a point.
..and you've shown zero ability to comprehend and address the content of my actual post. You had to twist the definition being discussed in order to troll up an excuse for your current rant. If you want to be taken seriously remain on topic. If you have a problem with a previous thread address it in that thread rather than try and hijack someone else's work.
I did address it, and you did nothing. Here, I am addressing your wont for talking language when you have little grasp of it.
But, of course, proceed, by all means. You are a christian, and that gives you carte blanche to speak from ignorance. Hell, it's your whole damned cachet.
May 16, 2012 at 9:07 am (This post was last modified: May 16, 2012 at 9:34 am by KichigaiNeko.)
(May 16, 2012 at 9:06 am)Epimethean Wrote:
(May 16, 2012 at 8:50 am)Drich Wrote: ..and you've shown zero ability to comprehend and address the content of my actual post. You had to twist the definition being discussed in order to troll up an excuse for your current rant. If you want to be taken seriously remain on topic. If you have a problem with a previous thread address it in that thread rather than try and hijack someone else's work.
I did address it, and you did nothing. Here, I am addressing your wont for talking language when you have little grasp of it.
But, of course, proceed, by all means. You are a christian, and that gives you carte blanche to speak from ignorance. Hell, it's your whole damned cachet.
In the mean time...enjoy some of Kichi's goofs!
(May 13, 2012 at 12:43 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: So what does it take for God to perform a miracle so that people may bear testimony to his glory? I always seemed to be looking the wrong way so all I could ever do was share my hearsay about miracles. It's rather strange that God didn't want to put on a show for his own people no?
"The Universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." G'Kar-B5
